LabManager

Where Science and Management Meet

August 2007

MAGAZINE

Volume 2 Number 8

INSIDE:

Salary and Budget Survey Results Retaining Key Employees Multiple Fluorescence Probe Images
www.labmanager.com

contents

LabManager
Where Science and Management Meet

MAGAZINE

AUGUST 2007

features
13 19 25
THE LAB MANAGER SALARY AND BUDGET SURVEY Respondents to our first salary and budget survey answered questions on the workplace, money, and job satisfaction.

HOW TO RETAIN KEY EMPLOYEES Companies that do a better job of attracting, developing, and retaining their talent can boost their performance dramatically.
John K. Borchardt

MANAGING AND MEETING CHALLENGES WITH MULTIPLE FLUORESCENCE PROBE IMAGES Development of a computational approach to quantitatively unmix overlapping spectra
Rao V. L. Papineni, Ph.D. and Douglas O.S. Wood, Ph.D.

contents

AUGUST 2007
departments
39 43 47 49 51 53
SOP CORNER Model for Writing SOPs
Norm Moreau, PE

In every issue
10 Upfront 31 How It Works 33
Product Focus:
Protein Expression and Analysis

THE SAFETY GUYS Safety Beyond the Lab: Ergonomics in the Office, Part 2
Glenn Ketcham, CIH and Vince McLeod, CIH

34 Lab Agenda 36 Product News 52 Advertiser Index

WORKFORCE & CAREER INSIGHTS Retaining Institutional Knowledge When Key Employees Head For The Exits
Joseph Daniel McCool

LAB DIAGNOSIS Concepts in Asset Management, Maintenance, and Compliance

Gerry Hall

THE INTERVIEW Deborah Miller, DMJ Miller & Associates

F. Key Kidder

HUMAN FACTORS Effectively Interviewing Employment Candidates

John K. Borchardt

Lab Manager Magazine (ISSN: 1931-3810) is published monthly by Vicon Publishing, Inc., 4 Limbo Lane, Amherst, NH 03031. USPS 024-188 Periodical Postage Paid at Amherst, NH 03031 and at additional mailing office. A requester publication, Lab Manager is distributed to qualified subscribers. Non-

qualified subscription rates in the U.S. and Canada: $120 per year. All other countries: $180 per year, payable in U.S. funds. Back issues may be purchased at a cost of $15 each in the U.S. and $20 elsewhere. While every attempt is made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, the publisher and its employees cannot accept responsibility for the correctness of information supplied, advertisements or opinions expressed. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Lab Manager Magazine, 4 Limbo Lane, Amherst, NH 03031.

2007 Lab Manager Magazine by Vicon Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission from the publisher. Permission is granted for those registered with the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 (phone: 978-750-8400; fax:978-750-4470) to photocopy articles for a base fee of $1 per copy of the article plus $.35 per page.
WDS Canadian return: Station A P.O. Box 54 Windsor, Ontario N94 6J5

6 LabManager

labmanager.com

LabManager
EDITORIAL

MAGAZINE

PATRICE GALVIN - Editor In Chief pgalvin@labmanager.com | 603-672-9997, x112 BARBARA VANRENTERGHEM, Ph.D. - Science Editor bvanrenterghem@labmanager.com LIZ STITT - Editorial Assistant lstitt@labmanager.com | 603-672-9997, x109

Author Guidelines
Lab Manager Magazine is a printed publication of resources, products, and information for todays laboratory manager. Articles should address some aspect of laboratory management from the perspective of a professional who is both a scientist and a manager. Topics areas would include: managing budgets, personnel, technology, information, funding, training, safety, risk, expansion, building or renovation, among others related to the role of a lab manager. The article review process should begin with a query by email or phone followed by a brief abstract or outline. Please state your topic and objective, and indicate your perspective as well as your professional relationship to the topic. Content must be unbiased and cannot promote a particular product or company. Article length may range from 1500-2500 words. All manuscripts must be submitted electronically by email or disk.
To submit an article query contact: Patrice Galvin Editor in Chief Lab Manager Magazine pgalvin@labmanager.com 603-672-9997 x112

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

MICHAEL BROWNSTEIN, Ph.D., MD J. Craig Venter Institute WAYNE COLLINS, Ph.D. Thermo Fisher Scientific LYN FAAS Consultant, Past-President of ALMA GLENN KETCHAM, CIH University of Florida MARY KEVILLE Wyeth VINCE MCLEOD, CIH University of Florida JOHN L. TONKINSON, Ph.D. HistoRx, Inc. ANDY ZAAYENGA The Laboratory Robotics Interest Group

ADVERTISING SALES
PATRICK MURPHY - Publisher pmurphy@labmanager.com | 603-672-9997, x106 VICTORIA MACOMBER - Vice President of Sales vmacomber@labmanager.com | 508-928-1255 LARRY MAHER - MW/SE Sales Director lmaher@labmanager.com | 630-350-2975

REPRINTS
JARED FLETCHER jfletcher@viconpublishing.com | 603-672-9997, x118

ART & PRODUCTION

JOAN SULLIVAN - VP , Art & Production jsullivan@labmanager.com ALICE SCOFIELD - Ad Traffic Manager ascofield@labmanager.com | 603-672-9997, x101

ADMINISTRATION
PATRICK MURPHY - C.E.O./Publisher pmurphy@viconpublishing.com PATRICIA GRADY - C.O.O. pgrady@viconpublishing.com CURTIS CARMICHAEL - Marketing/Communications Manager ccarmichael@viconpublishing.com

EXECUTIVE OFFICES
Vicon Publishing, Inc. 4 Limbo Lane Amherst, NH 03031 603-672-9997 fax 603-672-3028 www.viconpublishing.com

8 LabManager

labmanager.com

upfront
Dollars and Cents
The Budget: a mathematical confirmation of your suspicions. A.A. Latimer I began to realize how simple life could be if one had a regular routine to follow with fixed hours, a fixed salary, and very little original thinking to do.

Roald Dahl

ur thanks to everyone who participated in the Lab Manager Salary and Budget Survey. The survey was conducted in May 2007 and the results are inside this issue. As the first survey, its hard to make sweeping pronouncements about what lab managers make, or the best state or industry to work in but we have some data and a starting point for future salary surveys. In the comments section of the survey, quite a few participants wrote in that they were looking for information to gauge how their earnings measure up to others locally or around the country. The salary information was sliced and diced in a few ways and some comparisons were made for region in the U.S. as well as by industry. (We hope to expand our coverage of the international lab management picture in the future.) The write-in remarks echoed a sentiment that lab managers and scientists salaries do not match their education or the true value of the work they perform. But from the way the percentages fell, that does not appear to be the whole picture. Altruism is also in the mix. Despite the fact that most respondents said that more money would improve their job satisfaction, over 65% of people didnt pick money as the answer. Many checked off advancement, respect, and recognition over money. One respondent wrote, We feel lucky to have both of us employed in geology and the job has lots of freedom to plan my own schedule; thus the willingness to take a low salary. The words lucky and low salary are both in there. This is some of what we hoped to find in sending these questions out there the unexpected answer. In the budget results, we found that there wasnt much surprising about the data collected bigger labs have more spending power. As with most things, the survey answered some questions which only led to more questions about things we want to find out. We hope to tailor future questions to take a closer look at where the money comes from, where it goes, and why. One clearcut message did come through, however. The write-in remarks revealed an apparently universal cry for more lab space. Everyone seems to be feeling the crunch and looking for more room for staff and equipment. Though most respondents said that their budget for this year was more than allocated the previous fiscal year, money for physical plant improvements is not keeping pace with the need.

DID YOU MISS OUT ON TAKING THE SURVEY?

We will be conducting the salary and budget survey next year and other short surveys related to lab management throughout the year. If you didnt receive a link to take the survey, it probably means we dont have your email address. One way to participate in the next survey is to sign up for the Lab Manager E-Newsletter. Just like the print magazine, the E-Newsletter is free to qualified professionals. Its distributed every other week and contains a focus article, industry news, and two new features the Lab Safety Tip and the Management Tip of the Week. You can sign up to receive the E-Newsletter and to access the archive at www.labmanager.com. Patrice Galvin

1 0 LabManager

labmanager.com

managing money

The Lab Manager Salary and Budget Survey

RESPONDENTS TO OUR FIRST SALARY AND BUDGET SURVEY ANSWERED QUESTIONS ON THE WORKPLACE, MONEY, AND JOB SATISFACTION.
The response to the first Lab Manager Salary and Budget Survey was excellent. Scientists and managers from the U.S. and internationally took part answering the 20 questions on where they work, how much they make and can spend, as well as some answers to less tangible but still important issues about job satisfaction and upward mobility. When the survey closed, 884 respondents answered questions that gave a snapshot of some big picture items in lab management. The questions and results are listed on the following pages. Some of the correlation between dollars and workplace are made below along with some other interesting insights and comments that respondents shared. It is important to note that the survey results are based on the responses from subscribers to Lab Manager Magazine. While the results from the data are accurate, we need to acknowledge that the survey was neither comprehensive nor exhaustive.

THE PAYCHECK
What industry pays the most? Does geographic location matter? While the overwhelming percentage (85%) was from respondents in the U.S., 39 countries were represented in the overall results. Of that 15% outside the U.S., the largest response was from Canada followed by India. Salary ranges and percentage results can be found in The Results section of this article. The big questions are how do industry and region relate to earnings? Salary by Industry: Salary by industry results offered interesting findings. Though it may come as no surprise that university lab salaries were reported to be generally lower than the rest, government labs seemed to pay relatively well. In the over $100,000 range, biotech and industrial labs seem to offer the most earning potential while most of the clinical or research lab salaries start and remain between $46 and $104K. Some sudden dollar drop-offs occur almost across the board at the $105 to $150K range with the exception of biotech labs where the percentage jumped by almost 9%.

Some of the correlation between dollars and workplace ... along with some other interesting insights and comments that respondents shared.

AVERAGE SALARY BY INDUSTRY

Pharmaceutical Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$69,800 Biotech Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$69,040 University Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$46,760 Clinical or Research Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$62,910 Industrial Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$72,270 Government Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$69,040 Private Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$64,050 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$55,000 Salary by Region: Though admittedly the salary results should not be the basis to pack up your bags and move, a top ten list was calculated by comparing the number of respondents and the salary ranges by state. If we had asked people which state they would guess had the best pay ranges, most probably would have California (the number one state for highest pay from this survey) as in the top few. Covering mainly the eastern U.S., others in the top ten are Maryland, Colorado, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and South Carolina.

>>
LabManager 1 3

labmanager.com

The results of the average salary by region of lab managers who responded to the survey. The eight regions are:

REGION

AVERAGE SALARY

New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$74,689.65 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT) South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$64,923.08 (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, MO, SC, TN) PA/NY/NJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$70,015.38 Mid-Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$70,673.08 (DE, District of Columbia, MD, NC, VA, WV) Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$67,239.13 (IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, OK, SD, WI) West/Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . .$71,594.60 (CO, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, AK, WY) California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$91,884.61 Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$68,999.99 (AZ, NM, TX) Overall Average: . . . . . . . . . . . . .$69,683.39 Salary by Organizational Size: The size of the organization did play a role in salary and budget dollars. In round numbers, 20% of the people who participated in the survey work in organizations of less than 100 people, 37% in organizations of 100 to 1,000 and 43% in large organizations of over 1,000 employees. The comparison of organizational size to salary and budget supported what might be expected that the larger the organization, the larger the budget and salary ranges.

These are simply the straight response numbers, however, and while inferences can be made, more information is needed to answer why these differences exist. Years with Current Employer: A surprising finding was the years with the current employer. Almost 40% responded that they have been with the current employer for more than 10 years. More than half of that number (20.14%) checked the over 20 years box. This result may merit questions in future surveys, such as, why people stay with a single employer? Is it tenure, great benefits, the projects? In a time when the trends indicate that loyalty is still alive but that the reasons for staying are shifting (from money, security, promotion to flexibility, responsibility, and company culture), this finding may be worth looking at more closely.

MONDAY FRIDAY
Do you like your job? Survey questions relating to inside the lab asked about job title, number of lab members, and some questions on job satisfaction. Its good to work in a lab. An overwhelming majority (74.21%) indicated that their job satisfaction level was good to excellent (Table 2). Most findings on job satisfaction state that its not all about the money. But our survey indicates that about 35% percent would want an increase. However, the survey allowed respondents to only pick ONE answer from the list. So the 18.49% who chose advancement and the 10.95% who checked off more recognition, skipped over the choice of more money. This means that 65% of the respondents say their job satisfaction level would rise with a non-monetary reward.

SPENDING MONEY
Whats your labs budget? With 41% saying that their labs budget is over a million dollars, the good news is that 44.54% reported that this years budget is higher than last year and only 13.54% indicated a decrease. As expected, salary and compensation take the lions share of the overall budget with approximately 75% of respondents saying that 25-75% of the budget is to pay staff. The dollars available for purchasing equipment, products, and services is over $100,000 for more than 43%. While it probably feels like its never enough, lab budgets have grown and buying power is higher.

THE PEOPLE
The age old question, do men get paid more than women? Though the numbers are getting closer, the survey showed more men are in the role of lab management than women by over than 13%. The U.S. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics does periodic data tracking of science degrees awarded by discipline as well as gender and minority status. The results from 20041 showed that 50.4% of the bachelors degrees in all disciplines of science and engineering were awarded to women. That percentage holds true for the number of chemistry degrees as well.2 Trends from the data indicate that the numbers are remaining somewhat static. Table 1 shows males vs. females in the salary category. The numbers show more women earning in the lower ranges (48% earning $65K and less compared to 37% for males) and fewer in the higher ranges (23% earning $86K and higher compared to 37% for males).

AVERAGE LAB BUDGET BY INDUSTRY

Pharmaceutical Lab . . . . . . . . . .$390,000 Biotech Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$437,500 University Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$222,000 Clinical or Research Lab . . . . .$630,000 Industrial Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$315,000 Government Lab . . . . . . . . . . . .$560,000 Private Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$315,000 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$330,000

14 LabManager

labmanager.com

Table 1. Salary Range by Gender

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Under $25 $25 $45 $46 $65 $66 $85 $86 $105 Over $104 $150 $150K

Table 2. Job Satisfaction

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Low Very Low
4.24% 1.16% 20.38%

8.98% 38.10% 32.16%

OTHER
Some of what was said between the lines It was in the other responses that some interesting results were gleaned. The question asking, In order to earn more, do you feel like you would have to offered some insights. While 46.30% said earning more meant changing employers, many typed in the response all of the above (choices were change employers, take an upper management position, and further your education). Other responses included: Sell patents Improve efficiency and accuracy, fully utilize labor resources and automated equipment Move to another country Continue to bring in more business Publish more, secure federal grants, and earn tenure Attract more grant money Give myself a raise Work overtime Dependant on Clinical Trial success Change fields Move to a lab with a larger staff and more responsibility Get a sex change Own my own company Do more globally Develop new business, build clientele Present a detailed argument on reasons for pay increase Relocate Present administration with salaries from similar institutions One respondent wrote, The entire discipline of basic science is underpaid. It is one of the few disciplines that require specific upper division education but has salaries still equivalent to that of a high school degree. I see the main salary issue coming from the granting agencies that set what portions of funding can go for what positions. Most knock down the request of payroll funding of a Research Lab Manager and substitute in the

funding for the position of Post Doc. I believe the technicians/research scientists/lab managers will have organize and petition the current salary standards, very much like the nurses and teachers have already done, to raise their respective income to match the education required and level of responsibility required of their respective positions. Another question that generated many written responses was If there was one item you could include in your budget, what would it be? Though over 41% checked Pay raises/bonuses, there was a very emphatic theme in the write-in responses. Almost without exception, the write-in responses were one of these three key items: More lab space or a new facility More money for staff training and continuing ed Automation

SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
So what do lab managers want? The survey indicates that, overall, lab managers are a happy bunch. A little more money, a bigger or renovated lab, updated technology and automation would make most of them a little happier. This first survey will be the basis for comparison for future surveys. We look forward to following the results over time and seeing the changes and trends. PG, BV, LS

References
1. National Science Foundation, Science Resource Statistics, Degrees awarded in all fields in science and engineering by degree level and sex of recipient: 19662004. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab3.pdf 2. National Science Foundation, Science Resource Statistics, Chemistry degrees awarded, by degree level and sex of recipient: 19662004. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07307/pdf/tab38.pdf

labmanager.com

LabManager 1 5

THE RESULTS
THERE WERE 884 RESPONDENTS TO OUR FIRST SALARY AND BUDGET SURVEY. LISTED BELOW ARE THE SURVEY QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES.
WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR TITLE/JOB FUNCTION?
Laboratory Manager, Director, or Supervisor . . . . .67.76% Purchasing Manager, Director, or Supervisor . . . . .0.34% R&D Manager, Director, or Supervisor . . . . . . . . .3.28% Technical Manager, Director, or Supervisor . . . . . .7.01% Executive Management/Administration . . . . . . . .3.51% Scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.39% Chemist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.94% Research Scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.05% Pathologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.11% Professor/Faculty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.36% Consultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.11%

HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK IN YOUR LAB?

125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.58% 26-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18.46% 51-100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.55% Over 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.40%

GENDER:
Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56.15% Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.85%

HIGHEST DEGREE RECEIVED:

Bachelors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47.77% Masters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28.80% PhD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.17% MD/PhD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.06% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.20%

WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY?

Pharmaceutical Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.54% Biotech Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.69% University Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.53% Clinical Research Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.71% Industrial Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.46% Government Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.38% Private Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.78% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27.90%

YOUR AGE:
Under 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.57% 2529 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.66% 3039 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25.49% 4049 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.49% 5059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29.37% 6065 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.74% Over 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.69%

IS YOUR ORGANIZATION LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.55% No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.45%

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN WITH YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?
0-1 year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.50% 12 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.14% 610 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21.55% 1115 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.60% 1620 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.84% Over 20 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.14%

HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED BY YOUR ORGANIZATION?

125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.85% 2650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.11% 51100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.11% 101250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.55% 251500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.65% 5011,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.39% 1,0015,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.94% 5,00110,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.14% Over 10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.27%

ARE YOU WORKING FULL-TIME OR PARTTIME?

Full-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98.27% (more than 35 hours per week) Part-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.73% (less than 35 hours per week)

16 LabManager

labmanager.com

DO YOU TELECOMMUTE?
Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61.30% Occasionally, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.94% One day per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.97% but not on a regular basis More than one day per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.71% Only when overtime is needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.09%

WHAT IS YOUR LAB'S ANNUAL BUDGET?

Less than $100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11.73% $100,000 $250,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.20% $250,000 $500,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.42% $500,000 $1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.65% Over $1,000,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.00%

WHAT IS YOUR SALARY RANGE?

Under $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.92% $25,000 $35,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.16% $36,000 $45,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.60% $46,000 $55,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.10% $56,000 $65,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.85% $66,000 $75,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.04% $76,000 $85,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.92% $86,000 $95,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.99% $96,000 $104,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.78% $105,000 - $125,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.78% $126,000 $150,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.44% Over $150,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.40%

HOW DOES YOUR BUDGET COMPARE TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR?

Higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.54% Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13.54% No change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.92%

WHAT IS YOUR APPROXIMATE BUDGET FOR PURCHASING LAB EQUIPMENT, PRODUCTS, AND/OR SERVICES?
Less than $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.29% $5,000 $10,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.13% $10,000 $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.77% $25,000 $50,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.51% $50,000 $100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.31% Over $100,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.98%

HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION?

Very low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.18% Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.24% Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.38% Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32.16% Very good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33.10% Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.95%

WHAT PERCENT OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET IS SPENT ON WAGES/SALARY/ COMPENSATION?

Under 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17.05% 2550% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39.06% 51-75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36.52% 76100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.38%

WHICH ONE OF THE CHOICES BELOW WOULD MOST IMPROVE YOUR JOB SATISFACTION LEVEL?
More money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.51% More recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.95% More advancement potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18.49% More budget influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.59% More corporate influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01% More collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.19% More autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.24% More respect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.01%

IF THERE WAS ONE ITEM YOU COULD INCLUDE IN YOUR BUDGET, WHAT WOULD IT BE?
More staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29.93% Pay raises/bonuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.36% New equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22.51% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.20%

IN ORDER TO EARN MORE, DO YOU FEEL YOU WOULD HAVE TO:

Change employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46.30% Move to upper management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34.78% Further your education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.99% Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8.93%

Manage by exception. When things are going well, leave them alone. When a problem occurs, then help. --From www.liraz.com/tpeople.htm.

labmanager.com

LabManager 17

managing retention

How to Retain Key Employees

COMPANIES THAT DO A BETTER JOB OF ATTRACTING, DEVELOPING, AND RETAINING THEIR TALENT CAN BOOST THEIR PERFORMANCE DRAMATICALLY.
Talent is a critical driver of corporate performance and a potential competitive advantage. McKinsey & Company research indicated that companies scoring high in their ability to manage talent earned, on average, a 22% higher return to shareholders than their industry peers. The 1997 landmark paper called The War for Talent involved surveys of 13,000 executives at more than 120 companies and detailed case studies at 27 companies. This The War for Talent report evolved into a 2001 book of the same name authored by McKinsey consultants Ed Michaels, Helen Handfield-Jones, and Beth Axelrod. Their central premise was that effective talent management is critical to every companys success. However, the authors found that high performing companies did not have better human resources processes than their lower-performing peers. Instead, what distinguished them was a pervasive talent mindset held by company leaders at all levels that competitive advantage comes from having superior talent. The authors state that everyone from the CEO down to line managers must believe that talent is a top priority and that it is part of their job to manage talent effectively. How can companies do this? This issue was explored in a recent symposium held at the American Chemical Society National Meeting (March 2007) and sponsored by the Division of Business Management & Development, General Papers Relating to Management of the Chemical Enterprise.

ASSESSING PERFORMANCE
...competitive advantage comes from having superior talent.

To develop people, managers must first be able to accurately assess performance. This process should begin with your first discussion with a new hire. Discuss the job description with the new hire. Modify the job description as appropriate to take advantage of the new employees strengths and your expectations for this individual. Discuss your expectations with the new hire. Define a list of action items for each new employee to accomplish in their first six months. This will help them stay focused on their most important goals and tasks. Emphasize that the employee will be evaluated on the basis of accomplishing these goals and mastering these tasks. Many employees resign during their first few months on the job. Megan Driscoll, President, PharmaLogics Recruiting, advises that it is important for managers to understand the new hires expectations and address them effectively while demonstrating that you have their best interests in mind. She suggests, Have the new employee outline for you what he or she would like to accomplish as an addendum to your list of expectations. If you are aware for instance that gaining experience in lab design and layout is something the employee would like to do, you might come across a project where you could invoke their participation. If you dont know what that employee is looking to learn, you dont have the opportunity to expose and develop that candidate in ways that interest them. This reduces their job engagement and increases the possibility of their departure to work elsewhere. Put all the mutually agreed upon expectations in writing. Be sure the candidate has a copy. This will serve as a roadmap for both of you assuring that the new hire has an individualized development plan. As the new hire gains experience and progresses in their career, work with them to update the roadmap to reflect their changing circumstances. Managers must communicate continuously with their employees in order to assess

John K. Borchardt
labmanager.com

>>
LabManager 19

their progress. Waiting until the date of a scheduled formal review may allow problems to develop and erode the employees job satisfaction and motivation. For some employees, an open-door policy may suffice to promote this communication. However, for less assertive individuals, the manager needs to take the initiative in managing by walking around and engaging employees in discussions to learn how they are progressing in meeting their goals. Indeed, given how busy managers are and that they may often be tied up in meetings, managing by walking around is a good strategy to adopt for all ones employees. These informal progress assessments are valuable. However, also schedule a formal six month progress review. This in-depth discussion will let you to assess if candidates are living up to your expectations. It also will allow employees to communicate whether the job and you as manager are living up to their expectations. Driscoll notes that at the time of this first formal review both of you can change your approaches to each other before they become counter-productive, ingrained habits.

DEVELOPING PEOPLE
This should be done on an individualized basis by working with each employee to create a personal path forward for them, says Lisa Prior, Principal, Prior Consulting. This means setting goals

consistent with their current job assignment and what they need master to take the next step in their careers. These goals must also be consistent with what motivates each individual employee. For one, it may be promotion. For another, it might be raises or bonuses. For a third, it might be independence and flexibility. Making each employees goals consistent with their prime motivators helps assure that the employees commitment to mutually agreed upon goals is more than mere lip service. Managers should then determine the experiences that will enable them to achieve these goals, Prior advises. These experiences could be assignments to specific projects or work teams. It could also be education and training. The manager and employee need to agree upon a timeframe to accumulate these experiences and accomplish these goals. Finally, the employee needs to take responsibility for achieving their goals. While managers should be supportive, they should not have to constantly prompt employees to take the steps needed to accomplish these goals. The number of employees most managers supervise makes this an impossible task. Prior notes that one has to determine how one measures success. This can be set by the manager or mutually agreed upon with the employee. Either way, the employee must accept the measures for success. These will determine if the employee has

20 LabManager

labmanager.com

met his/her goals. Disagreement on this can be very corrosive to the manager-employee relationship and, should the employee complain to co-workers, cause broader morale problems as well. Managers can best motivate employees to achieve goals when these goals tap into their personal interests. For example, Ive long been passionately interested in improving the environment. One of my managers tapped into this by assigning me to a project to develop biodegradable detergent chemicals to remove ink from pulped wastepaper for paper recycling. The alignment of my personal goals with my employment goals was a great motivator. In developing employees, assessment can determine an employees strengths that need to be capitalized on and weaknesses that need to be remedied. Prior comments, Many managers tell me that there is no time for development because they are stuck in an old paradigm: that sending people to training programs is the way to develop them. However, a classic problem with many training courses is how to transfer what one has learned from the classroom to the job. Without the managers support, it is often difficult to do this due to the press of immediate assignments. There are also other ways to develop employees. One is

action learning opportunities associated with ones job. For example, in developing paper recycling chemicals, I had to learn a lot about paper industry technology. This led to my developing other paper chemicals business opportunities outside of paper recycling. Other action learning opportunities are associated with working on multi-functional project teams particularly those that include company employees from other departments or suppliers and customers. For some employees, providing external exposure through visits to customers and suppliers, professional society activities and attending conferences are both educational and motivating. For other, presentations or writing articles for publication is educational and motivating. Assignment as a team leader can be a first step in developing valuable management experience and developing leadership skills. Job rotation into other assignments is valuable but can be difficult to justify. Reassignment may be good for both the individual and organization in the long term. However, in the short term it can cause a loss in productivity as the transferred employee learns a new job. A lateral shift can make some employees feel less secure as they temporarily lose their expert status until they master a new job and its associated technology.

labmanager.com

LabManager 21

Business as usual can result in substantial barriers to action learning. Prior noted that these include an attitude that there is no time for action learning activities. Some managers will not support these activities for fear of reducing productivity. Others and their employees as well may lack the imagination to devise constructive action learning opportunities.

COACHING AND FEEDBACK

Prior observed that for employee development to succeed, managers have to effectively provide feedback and coaching. Barriers to doing this include a desire to avoid appearing overly critical and to avoid conflict. If one is uncomfortable with the process, finding the right time and place to do this can be difficult. Some managers are reluctant to fully engage in the process because they view it as time-consuming. Before sitting down with the employee, the manager should be sure that he/she has a complete picture of the employees job responsibilities and performance before giving feedback.

OVERALL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

Companies such as General Electric differentiate between the career opportunities and financial rewards offered to employees based on their performance. Exceptional (A) performers are rewarded with fast-track advancement opportunities and substantially higher salaries than average performers. Average (B) performers should be given the training and support they need to become A performers. Below-average (C) performers must be given opportunities to improve their performance. Should this not occur, they must be separated from the organization. Typically, C performers are often in the same job for many years. Some managers prefer to give C performers a second opportunity in another job assignment that may be more suited to their skills. Driscoll depicted this differentiation of opportunities in Figure 1. The X-axis of Figure 1 represents the progression of new hires progressing from novice with much to learn to mastering the requirements of their current assignments and exhibiting outstanding performance. The Y-axis represents something often harder to assess than performance the potential for outstanding performance both in ones current assignment and at the next level. As Driscoll explains in Figure 1, the career planning activities differ for each stage of the individuals progression in their job assignment until, at the right of Figure 1, the employee is ready for promotion or other career enhancing experiences. Potential represents a combination of the individuals learning ability and adaptability to

22 LabManager

labmanager.com

Overall, this approach can make your work unit or your company more attractive to highly talented people. However, it can also have a disadvantage in possibly making B performers feel undervalued. Certainly, the C performers will fill some pain associated with reassignment or job loss.

THE MANAGERS ROLE

Managers must accept their roles in developing talent along the lines depicted in Figure 1. This means coaching and mentoring employees as needed. To do so effectively, managers must learn what motivates each person. They must be good communicators to have productive career planning and talent development discussions with their employees. By doing all this and having passion for the process, managers will create engaged employees. Driscoll calls rewards tools for retention. Rewards help keep employees engaged and satisfied reducing employee turnover increasing company costs and delaying projects. She notes that rewards are more than the monetary ones of receiving raises and year-end bonuses. Another tangible reward is promotion. Intangible rewards are often easier to provide. Their effectiveness largely depends on the managers knowledge of what

Figure 1. Strategies to strategically develop people.* new assignments. If ones potential is low, even an individual performing very well in their current assignment may not be suited to move to the next level if that level is an extremely challenging one. Indeed, some individuals in this situation, with other priorities such as balancing their work and personal lives, may decline advancement to the next level. In this situation, managers much develop a strategy for the individual to use his/her skills more effectively at their current job level. One obvious way to do so depicted in Figure 1 is to train others.

labmanager.com

LabManager 23

motivates each employee. As a recruiter, Driscoll says, I have found that there are two main reasons why employees either stay with their company or conversely why employees choose to leave. 1. Whether the employee has positive feelings about their manager or negative feelings about their manager. 2. Whether the employee feels there is growth potential within the company or a lack thereof. She notes, Neither of these reasons for an employee leaving is addressed with a monetary or tangible reward. However, intangible rewards, judiciously used can increase employee satisfaction to the point where they do not consider leaving. One is informal monthly discussions focusing on what the employee is doing very well and praising them for it. Just knowing they are appreciated goes a long way to increasing employee satisfaction and improving motivation. Periodic awards recognizing outstanding contributions need not be expensive. These plaques are often highly visible in the recipients office motivating both themselves and their co-workers who resolve to win one too. The act of working with each employee to create personalized development plans goes a long way to instilling loyalty. They feel

that have a place to go within an organization. To increase engagement, ask each employee during their annual performance review what they hope to achieve over the course of the next year or two. Then work together to create a plan accommodating at least some of their goals. The employee feels you, as manager, support their professional growth. Their ideas may indicate new ways they can contribute to the organization.

WRAP-UP
Effective talent management applies to non-profit organizations, such as educational institutions and government laboratories, as well. Like industry, they are engaged in a war for talent. As industry, science and applied technology become increasingly globalized, this war of talent is becoming a worldwide struggle. *Note: Figure 1 is used with permission by Megan Driscoll, taken from her presentation at the ACS national meeting in Chicago. Dr. Borchardt is a consultant and technical writer. The author of the book Career Management for Scientists and Engineers, he writes often on career-related subjects. He can be reached at jkborchardt@hotmail.com.

24 LabManager

labmanager.com

managing technology

Managing and Meeting Challenges

With Multiple Fluorescence Probe Images
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO QUANTITATIVELY UNMIX OVERLAPPING SPECTRA
Multichannel fluorescence imaging is becoming an indispensable tool for post-genomic biological research. Most of the techniques being applied, both in vivo and in vitro, tend to require multiple labeling to visualize different events or to probe various aspects of the same subject. Overlapping emission spectra from multiple fluorescent probes complicates the acquisition and accurate analysis of individual labels and corresponding targets. To address this issue, a computational approach was developed to quantitatively unmix overlapping spectra. We initially constructed models of excitation spectra of individual fluorescent imaging agents as a superposition of multiple Gaussian functions. These models were then used to perform a quantitative unmixing of the combined spectra in milieu using a non-linear least squares optimization technique. We present here a reliable methodology to identify and quantify the individual components from multichannel fluorescent signals. Our results can be easily incorporated into any routine multispectral analysis. Several visible and near-IR fluorescent nanoparticles have recently been developed and commercialized. These nanoparticles are made of organic non-toxic materials and contain multiple fluorochromes that are embedded into the core of the nanoparticle. Two different nanoparticles (X-SIGHT 650: Absorption 650nm; Emission 673nm and X-SIGHT 691: Absorption 691nm; Emission 715nm) were used individually or in combination for the purpose. 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 pmoles of the nanoparticles were dispensed into five wells of each plate. Clear/black bottomed 96-well plates were used and the final volume in each of the 55 wells were 0.2 mL. The three plates were imaged using a multispectral imaging system. This multimodal system enables high-sensitivity optical imaging with high-resolution digital X-ray to enable quantification and localization of biomarkers in small animal imaging. It has a 29-excitation filter position wheel ranging from 380-830nm enabling a wide range of fluorescent applications.

We present here a reliable methodology to identify and quantify the individual components from multichannel fluorescent signals.

Figure 1: Representative images from the raw data cube showing the 55 grid of sample wells containing various mixtures. Each image was obtained using a different excitation filter with the emission filter for all images set to 750 nm. The intensity scale is identical for all images that have not been corrected for illumination variations.

570 nm Excitation

590 nm Excitation

610 nm Excitation

630 nm Excitation

650 nm Excitation

670 nm Excitation

690 nm Excitation

Rao V. L. Papineni, Ph.D., and Douglas O.S. Wood, Ph.D.

labmanager.com

LabManager 25

Figure 2. Validation of the unmixing procedure. The left panels show the calculated, unmixed images of the probes. The right panels show images taken of a plates with a 5x5 grid of plates containing only a single probe.

UNMIXED X-SIGHT 650 IMAGE

UNMIXED X-SIGHT 691 IMAGE

X-SIGHT 650 PLATE

X-SIGHT 691 PLATE

For this application, we used an exposure time of one minute with 44 binning on the sensor. The f-stop was 2.8 and the cameras zoom lens was set to image a field of view of 63mm. A 750nm emission filter was used for all image capture. A stack of 15 images was captured at excitation wavelengths from 410nm to 690nm. The first step in the process of unmixing the overlapping signals from the two probes is to measure the excitation spectrum of each probe individually and then construct a numerical model spectrum using a sum of Gaussian functions. This is accomplished with the use of an interactive software tool and takes less than one minute. The models can be saved in a library and used when analyzing subsequent image captures.

probes mixed together. The comparison in Figure 2 shows that the unmixed images closely match the images of the two probes taken separately, validating our method. It is important to draw attention to the fact that the left panels of Figure 2 are synthetic; they were created by the numerical analysis and were not captured by a camera. The panels on the right in Figure 2 are images taken from separate 96-well plates that have a 55 grid of wells with dilutions. The close resemblance of the images demonstrates the success of the unmixing methodology. The process of capturing the images and performing the unmixing analysis takes only a few minutes. The tools described here can be used routinely to analyze multiple fluorochrome-based micro or macro biological images. Note: The results were obtained using the KODAK X-SIGHT Imaging Agents and imaged using the KODAK In-Vivo Multispectral Imaging System FX.

EXCITATION SPECTRA AND GAUSSIAN MODELS

Unmixing is accomplished using the Levenberg-Marquardt method to perform a non-linear, least squares fit of the numerical models of the probes to the measured excitation spectrum at each pixel in the raw data cube. This process must be guided by the automatic selection of initial values for the fitting parameters in order to optimize the results. The fit produces two images, corresponding to the amount of each probe that must be used to produce the best fit to the measured spectrum at every pixel of the input. This process can be extended to any number of probes as long as the problem is mathematically well determined (i.e., there must be at least n+1 independent points in the spectrum in order to unmix n separate probes). The unmixing results are presented in Figure 2. As a test of the validity of the procedure, we created two additional 96-well plates each with a 55 grid with the corresponding dilutions for the individual probes. These grids were imaged under the same conditions as the original 96well plate where the grid had various combinations of both

References
Marquardt, D.W., 1963, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, v. 11, p. 431-441. Rao V.L. Papineni, Ph.D . is a biochemist in Research and Development, Carestream Molecular Imaging and can be reached at rao.papineni1@carestreamhealth.com. Douglas O.S. Wood, Ph.D. is the manager of software development, Carestream Molecular Imaging and can be reached at douglas.wood@carestreamhealth.com. Carestream Molecular Imaging is a division of Carestream Health, Inc., 4 Science Park, New Haven, CT 06511; ww.carestreamhealth.com/ go/molecular.

26 LabManager

labmanager.com

HOW IT WORKS
Freezer Sample Management
Problem:
Your lab has a variety of ultra low freezers (from various manufacturers and in various sizes) storing samples that belong to a number of researchers. The containers used in the freezers are haphazard and ill-fitting which makes finding things and keeping them organized impossible. Last month, there were so many complaints that there is not enough space available for samples that requests for buying more freezers have been submitted. Not only is there no funding for more freezers, theres no more space in the lab to house them. As a manager, how can you address the needs for more space without breaking the budget? via its online store. This mechanism can reduce the complexity of the entire process for you down to, in most cases, answering four easy questions: 1. What type of freezer do you have? (e.g., upright, chest) 2. Who manufactured your freezer? (e.g., Harris, Sanyo) 3. What size freezer do you have? (Dont know? We have a model number guide that has the corresponding size.) 4. What type of rack do you need? (e.g., racks for 2 boxes, drawer racks for 2 boxes, etc.) The LABREPCO Freezer Rack Configurator answers the call unlike any other for nagging storage problems that many laboratories have little or no time or resources to address. You can realize increased capacity for samples of 25% or more if your freezer inventory system is correctly configured and implemented. For more information and a look at this time-saving tool, go to: https://www.labrepco.com/config_la nd.htm.

Solution: Utilize the newly

designed, online solution that removes the guesswork in choosing the correct inventory system to fit your needs. The LABREPCO Freezer Rack Configurator is a unique online system that can help you with your inventory management mess to find what you need quickly for almost any laboratory freezer sold in the U.S. In the burgeoning environment of online quick fixes and while listening to customer requests to provide easy solutions, even when a personal appointment is not posThe LABREPCO Freezer Rack Configurator removes the guesswork and helps you put together an efficient freezer rack inventory system to fit your needs.

sible, LABREPCO has pioneered a format for you to locate online the freezer(s) that you own, determine which type of storage you need, and then order the entire system

labmanager.com

LabManager 31

product focus: Protein Expression and Analysis

Recombinant Fusion Protein Expression Systems The MAT-Tag system is a complete dual-tag expression, purification, and detection system for recombinant fusion proteins. Vectors incorporating both FLAG and MAT (HNHRHKH) epitope tags allow for IMAC purification, similar to histidine tagged applications, coupled with detection sensitivity of the antibody-based FLAG System. Sigma-Aldrich www.sigma.com

> >

High Throughput DLS for Polymer and Protein Analysis The model 802-DAT is a high throughput dynamic light scattering instrument. The instrument features dual attenuation technology controls the level of light entering the sample as well as controlling scattered light going to the detector. The instrument includes OmniSIZE 3.0 software and is able to automatically adjust the instrument sample by sample. Viscotek www.viscotek.com

> >

Protein Interaction Analysis The Biacore X100 is a ready to run system for label-free protein interaction analysis. It was designed for busy, multi-project life science research laboratories. The instrument can determine affinity and rate constants, binding specificity, concentration, and thermodynamic parameters of the interaction. Biacore www.biacore.com

labmanager.com

> >
Cell-Free Protein Expression The TNT Quick Systems are convenient single-tube, coupled transcription/translation reactions for cell-free protein expression. The systems are eukaryotic based allowing for the expression of proteins which are correctly folded, processed and display normal in vivo activity. The system was designed for a variety of applications including protein: protein and protein: nucleic acid interactions. Promega www.promega.com

> >

> >

Leishmania tarentolae Expression System The Leishmania tarentolae based expression system (LEXSY) is as robust as E. coli but has fully eukaryotic protein folding and modification machinery. Versions for constitutive and inducible expression are available with yields up to 300 mg/L. Jena Bioscience www.jenabioscience.com

LabManager 33

BE A BETTER LAB MANAGER

ONE DAY, ONE MISSION:

lab agenda
AUGUST 69, 2007
IBC's Drug Discovery and Development of Innovative Therapeutics (DDT) World Congress Boston, MA www.drugdisc.com

OCTOBER 24, 2007

L.A.B. 2007 London, England www.lab-uk.co.uk

BOOT CAMP
October 25, 2007
TOPICS INCLUDE : Preventive Maintenance for Your Staff Leadership in Safety Recruiting, Developing, and Managing Staff

LabManager

OCTOBER 1316, 2007

ACIL Annual Meeting American Council of Independent Laboratories Atlanta, GA www.acil.org

AUGUST 1923, 2007

ACS Meeting & Expo American Chemical Society Boston, MA www.acs.org

OCTOBER 1418, 2007

FACSS 2007 Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies Memphis, TN www.facss.org/facss/index.php

Also learn how to:

to equipment

AUGUST 2024, 2007

Forum on Laboratory Accreditation Cambridge, MA www.nelac-institute.org

Define your management style Manage lab assets from people Handle difficult situations and difficult
staff members

and more! PRESENTED BY Lab Manager Magazine

Massachusetts Medical Society Headquarters Waltham, MA Go to www.labmanagerbootcamp.com for the latest updates to the conference roster.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2007

DEVELOP and SUPPORT: Building on the Innate Skills of Your Staff to Prepare them for the Demands of Management Web Conference 1:00 PM EST viconpublishing.com/audio.asp

OCTOBER 2327, 2007

ASHG Annual Meeting American Society of Human Genetics San Diego, CA www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg /menu-annmeet.shtml

Click...
Sign up for Lab Manager's weekly e-newsletter and receive: original content relevant industry information a very valuable and quick read Go to www.labmanager.com and click on free e-newsletter to subscribe.

SEPTEMBER 19, 2007

Laboratory Environmental, Health, and Safety Compliance Strategies Web Conference 1:00 PM EST viconpublishing.com/audio.asp

OCTOBER 25, 2007

Lab Manager Boot Camp Lab Manager Magazine Waltham, MA www.labmanager.com

SEPTEMBER 2627, 2007

NIH Research Festival Boston, MA researchfestival.nih.gov

NOVEMBER 37, 2007

Neuroscience 2007 Society for Neuroscience San Diego, CA www.sfn.org

Lab Manager

eNEWS letter

OCTOBER 23, 2007

Joint ELRIG and SBS Meeting: Drug Discovery Nottingham, United Kingdom www.sbsonline.org

NOVEMBER 78, 2007

SBS Symposium: Back to Pharmacology Society for Biomolecular Sciences Anaheim, CA www.sbsonline.org

34 LabManager

labmanager.com

Advertisement

Sigma-Aldrich offers all the fundamental chemistry products that your research requires
Youve always relied on Sigma-Aldrich to offer a broad range of products and services used in analytical chemistry, chemical synthesis, materials science, pharmaceutical development and other high technology areas. Our capabilities include: Primary Manufacturer As a manufacturer of a majority of the products we offer, quality is built into each specialized grade, ensuring a perfect match between our reagents and their applications. Online Solvent Center Our applications portal, solvent selector, spec comparison tables and other tools aid in product selection, saving time and money -- sigma-aldrich.com/solvents Customized and Personalized Services Fulfill your scientific and business needs through services like our returnable container program or our custom manufacturing and packaging capabilities. Our Essential Chemistry Lab products include: Anhydrous and other High Purity Solvents Application-specific HPLC, NMR and LC/MS Solvents Acids and Bases Inorganic and Organic Reagents Reagent and Buffer Solutions

Delivering Science Through Business Understanding

sigma-aldrich.com/re

and all the essential life science products you need.

Rely on us, too, to provide the broadest range of products for breakthrough life science and genomic research, and biotechnology. We meet both the precise and evolving needs of life scientists and the daily demands of the procurement environments in which they work. Our Essential Life Science Lab products include: Molecular Biology Reagents Biological Buffers Cell Culture Microbiology Biological Detergents Antibiotics Carbohydrates Proteins and Amino Acids Histology & Hematology Breadth of Product Line We have an extensive product offering ranging from the most essential solvents, buffers, cell culture media and reagents, to the rarest chemical and biological specialty products. Quality Our reagents are manufactured to the highest level of standards in cGMP, FDA-regulated and ISO-certified facilities. Unrivaled Technical Support Backed by extensive scientific knowledge from our technical service team that customers have come to rely on. Leading-Edge Business Systems Powered by SAP and a suite of e-commerce solutions, we have a global logistics network to deliver our products on time and under the proper storage conditions to meet your needs. Let our knowledge and experience continue to work for you. Youve relied on us in the past. Because were listening, you can depend on us in the future.

Delivering Science Through Business Understanding

sigma-aldrich.com/re
LabManager 35

labmanager.com

product news
CLINICAL CENTRIFUGES
The Z206 A clinical centrifuge is a primary tube centrifuge, which accepts blood collection tubes directly. It will accept 15-mL conical tubes directly and smaller tubes with the use of adapters. The centrifuge features an LCD control panel and operation times range from 10 seconds to 99 hours. Labnet International www.labnetlink.com

STACKABLE SHAKER

HYDROGEN GENERATOR

Available as incubated or refrigerated digital models, the MaxQ 6000 shakers were designed for plasmid purification, protein expression studies, genetic research, solubility studies, growth of bacteria and yeast, and metabolism work. The incubated chamber has a range of 10 C above ambient to 80 C, while the refrigerated chamber ranges from 15 C below ambient to 80 C. Thermo Fisher Scientific www.thermofisher.com

Chrysalis II Hydrogen Generators offer a microprocessor operating system that allows laboratory personnel control over the quality and production of hydrogen gas delivered to GC-FID instruments. The robust operating system features a menu driven LCD screen that allows the operator to continuously monitor delivery pressure, flow rate, and water quality status. Matheson Tri-Gas www.mathesontrigas.com

36 LabManager

labmanager.com

tools of the trade

The mScript mRNA production system provides researchers with a method for producing eukaryotic mRNAs. Incorporating an in vitro transcription system, capping enzymes, and RNA poly(A) tailing reagents, the kit contains everything a researcher needs to produce transfection, electroporation, or microinjection-ready mRNA. EPICENTRE Biotechnologies www.epibio.com

MRNA PRODUCTION SYSTEM

MASS COMPARATORS

The robotic a107 comparator and the automated AX107H comparator have a resolution of 100 nanograms. They both cover a weighing range of 100 grams. The robotic a107 is available with a 3-axis robot and 30position magazine. The automated AX107H features a 4-position turntable and hanging pan. METTLER TOLEDO www.mt.com

CHEMILUMINESCENCE KITS AND REAGENTS

The Tropix line of chemiluminescence kits and reagents includes products such as the CDP-Star chemiluminescent substrate. The substrate allows users to detect alkaline phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase-labeled molecules. The line includes reporter gene assay kits, kits and reagents for Western Analysis and ELISAs, and chemiluminescent substrates and enhancers for developing custom assays. Applied Biosystems www.appliedbiosystems.com

The Lab Companion SI-600R combines a benchtop refrigerated incubator with a dualaction orbital and reciprocating shaker. The incubator allows the user to program run time from 10 seconds to 1,000 hours and forwardbackward-pause cycles. It features a temperature range of 15 C to 60 C. Jeio Tech www.jeiotech.com

REFRIGERATED SHAKING INCUBATOR

WELL PLATES

RADIOCHROMATOGRAPHY DETECTOR

The -RAM Model 4 for radio-HPLC measurement features a small footprint (6 wide x 13 deep), high counting efficiencies, and a leak-proof cell design that uses no internal fittings. This series also incorporates a system for automatically recording cell parameters and an overpressure sensor that is suitable for use with solid scintillator cells. IN/US Systems www.inus.com

The Deepwell 96 and 384 both feature a RecoverMax well design and OptiTrack alphanumeric coding. Plates 96/500 L, 96/1,000 L, 96/2,000 L, and 384/200 L are available in white, yellow, red, green, and blue as well as standard, sterile, DNA/RNA LoBind, and Protein LoBind quality formats. Eppendorf North America www.eppendorfna.com

AUTOMATED CELL CULTURE SYSTEM

MACCS, an automated cell culture system, enables multiple cell lines and products to be processed simultaneously allowing multiple research efforts to be supported in one system. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) sterilization and HEPA filtration ensures a continuously sterile environment. MatriCal www.matrical.com

The BeadXpress System features twocolor laser detection suited for low- to mid-multiplex experiments. The system allows research to assay tens to hundreds of analytes in a single sample simultaneously. It can be used in biomarker research and validation, pharmaceutical development, industrial testing, agriculture, clinical research, and the development of molecular diagnostic assays. Illumina www.illumina.com

MICROBEADS

labmanager.com

LabManager 37

SOP Corner

Model for Writing SOPs

So, youve been assigned to write a Standard Operating Procedure. What a bummer! Or worse, youve been told to look over all the SOPs right before an important external audit or a regulatory inspection. No doubt a recipe for disaster! Last month, we told you the basics about SOPs. We said, Never start a new task or project unless you can see your way to the end. Know the who-what-when-where-how to get to the why. This month, were showing you the path forward and the best place to start your SOP journey. This article introduces the SOP Writing Cycle and its time-honored four phases Plan, Do, Check, and Act. And, we lead you to the origin of great procedures that work like a charm, give opportunity for change and improvement, and pass anybodys scrutiny (even the auditors). Its all about planning. Many SOP writers assigned to develop a new SOP or revise an old one jump straight into the first draft without thinking through the real SOP writing cycle. The result? A disorganized, dysfunctional product with serious omissions, excess Figure 1. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA): irrelevant content, and other health problems. Time-honored Model for Continuous The SOP produced is at best only marginally Improvement useful. In fact, the SOP and the writer jeopardize each others credibility from this one simple oversight. Devoting time to planning how the SOP will be written, from conception to final product, is a surefire way to avoid problems in staying organized and on task. It shortens the draft stage, the review stage, and the writing stage. It starts you out with substance that can self-generate into finished product. Proper preparation avoids the many and sometimes massive rewrites at the end, just when you think youre done.

SOP WRITING CYCLE

Writing or revising any SOP leads to change. Figure 2. SOP Writing Cycle Using PDCA: Things were done one way before the SOP and Unbroken Cycle of Continuous Improvement another way after. Responsibilities, process flow, action steps, interfaces any one of these can be affected. Every SOP is the sum of architecture, organization, and infrastructure. One of the earliest and perhaps best known models for managing change is the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle (PDCA). Originally conceived by Walter Shewhart in the 1930s and later made popular by Dr. W. Edwards Deming, the PDCA is a simple fourstep method for managing change (see Figure 1). First, you plan the activity. Next, you

labmanager.com

Norm Moreau, PE

>>

LabManager 39

do what you planned then check what and how you did. Then, you act on what you learned and what you know about the good and bad and ugly of how things went. The result is an opportunity for improving any one step, any combination of steps, the whole cycle, and even the product. Just as a circle has no end point, the PDCA is actually a continuing spiral of improvement. The PDCA is a framework for managing change to improve a process, a system, a way of doing business, even a philosophy. Look at the four steps: PLAN the change for improvement. DO what you planned or change for improvement. CHECK what youve done and change for improvement. ACT on what you learn and change for improvement. Both success and failure using the PDCA involve the good, bad, and ugly. The good that results you want to keep and nurture. The bad you want to avoid or reduce. The ugly you want to get rid of or put to good use. It is what it says it is, a cycle, static and influenced by its construction as well as the environment where it is used. For SOPs, a few embellishments are called for. The PDCA as a guide for improvement through developing or revising SOPs becomes the blueprint for building products that last. Lets call it the SOP Writing Cycle (Figure 2). It is useful whether youre developing a single or several SOPs. Follow its path and the results are both change and improvement.

working title. Easy work so far. You captured the purpose of the SOP (why), gave it a scope of application (who-what-when-where), know when you have to finish now comes the fun part of planning setting a schedule, figuring out what resources you have to have for research, interviews, writing, reviewing, rewriting, getting approvals, and putting the product in the hands and minds of the users. Planning means design. It is the action of devising a way to realize or achieve a goal, an objective. It means to have in mind and to arrange the parts accordingly. In simpler words, you plan in order to build an SOP. Teachers plan lessons. Architects plan buildings. People plan retirement (ha ha ha). You, the SOP writer, plan the procedure.

KEY POINTS?
Understand the purpose of the SOP: Decide the function and intention of the procedure, what it is to accomplish, and write it down. Keep in mind the golden rule, Ask not what users can do for the procedure; ask what the procedure can do for the users. Define the scope of the SOP: Arrange the parts and pieces in your mind and on paper. Fit them into a flow that shows the expected process the structures, systems, and components that interrelate and interface and together take the user to victory. Come back next month for a new taste of the SOP Writing Cycle, the DO phase when you breathe life into your plan. After that, well get to the CHECK and ACT phases. Like a great SOP, this series of articles is about helping you be the SOP authority of choice. Norm Moreau is a consultant and trainer known for developing SOPs and implementing SOP programs that demonstrate GLP/GMP and nuclear QA compliance. His products and services are used to achieve ISO 9001 registration and ISO 17025 accreditation or by organizations that simply want to improve their operational efficiency and effectiveness. Since 2000, Norm has been offering the Writing SOPs that Work workshop at the National Meetings of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS). He welcomes comments, questions, even criticisms and can be reached at nmoreau@theseuspro.com.

PLAN
The SOP Writing Cycle starts with preparation, a plan. It can be simple or complex, basic or extensive, based on the scope, the number of SOPs, whether its to develop or revise them, time frame for completion, who and how many people need to be involved each factor contributes to how detailed you need to be. Remember, time spent on planning will shorten the draft and release phases and, in fact, the time the PDCA takes to complete its cycle. To plan an efficient SOP effort, start with a purpose what product is expected? Your upper management can help here. Ask them what they have in mind, who they have in mind, and when they want it. Having the purpose leads to defining the scope of the SOP; purpose plus scope give you a

40 LabManager

labmanager.com

SAFETYGUYS
Glenn Ketcham, CIH and Vince McLeod, CIH

the

Safety Beyond the Lab: Ergonomics in the Office, Part 2

Previously, we explored the ergonomic risk factors associated with the use of computers. Three of the fundamental ergonomic risk factors are: position/posture, repetition/duration, and force. These can all be influenced by the work area setup and the activities being performed. The good news is that these risk conditions that may cause pain and potential injury can often be easily controlled if one understands basic ergonomic concepts and how to apply them. To recap, the take-home message in Part 1 was balanced and neutral. Your monitor should be directly in front of you with the upper edge of the screen at eye-level or slightly below. Any hardcopy you work from should be placed in front of you on a document stand (not on the desk at your side) either between the keyboard and monitor or immediately to the side of the monitor. The keyboard and mouse should be in front of you and generally as close as practical to prevent over-reaching. Your wrists should be straight in both the vertical and lateral axis. In this issue we will discuss repetition/duration and force as it applies to ergonomic risk in the office setting and some possible solutions to get you through the day pain-free.

REPETITIVE MOTION
Repetition by definition involves doing things over and over again. In repetitive work, these same types of motions are performed using the same parts of the body in the same fashion time and time again. In activities such as typing, using a mouse, or referencing paper source documents, the affected muscles, tendons, and joints can be used thousands of times a day, week after week, year after year. The risk of injury is even greater when repetitious jobs involve awkward postures (e.g., bent or flexed wrists) or forceful exertions such as repetitive overreaching for the mouse (shoulder and neck pain). In conjunction with neutral and balanced as discussed in Part 1, our goal from an ergonomic standpoint is to reduce the number of repetitions experienced by each set of muscles, tendons, and joints throughout the workday and to allow time for recovery. The body has a great capacity to repair itself. Problems arise, however, when the amount of damage or stress accumulated over the course of time outpaces the bodys ability to repair. This is when we experience pain, and if the cumulative damage continues, so does the potential for serious injury. Short breaks in repetitive tasks can be of significant benefit. Break up data entry with variations in activity such as a bit of work at the bench, reading, or any other type of task that uses different muscles and motions than does computer use. It is good to include micro-breaks of just a minute or two every half hour during data entry campaigns. There is good software currently available that tracks keystrokes and mouse movements and alerts you when breaks are appropriate. It is often better to take many small breaks than one long break during the work day. It is important to examine and analyze the work being performed. Look at this along the same lines as a job hazard analysis where the parts of the job are examined on a task-by-task basis. In many cases that we have seen, there is much unnecessary repetitive work because of poor process design (or the process was really not designed at all it just grew). Questions that should be considered: Can parts of this process be automated? Can equipment be linked directly to CPUs for data

>>
LabManager 43

labmanager.com

collection? Can databases be programmed to talk to each other? In some instances, barcodes and readers might be used to reduce data entry. For other types of information collection and entry, readable/scanable forms are an option. It is often well worth investing a little time to engineer a solution that will save significant time and effort in the long run. Often we can trace pain to mouse over-use. This is often combined with poor mouse location. The conventional mouse requires a great amount of work to be directed through one arm, shoulder, and hand. It is often best to try to distribute this work and share it between both sides. One approach is the use of keyboard commands. Most of the commands commonly used can be accomplished by using keyboard commands (for those of you that remember those keyboard commands from the DOS days, they still work). For example in Windows, Ctrl-A will select all, Ctrl-C can be used to copy text and Ctrl-V will paste. Look at the menu bar at the top of your document next time you are on the computer; all the selections have one letter is underlined (e.g., File, Edit, View, Table, etc.). If you hit Alt and the underlined letter, the drop down menu will expand just as if you mouse clicked on it. Ctrl and underlined letter on the commands in the drop down menu will perform that function. This can greatly reduce mouse use and, once you get familiar with them, will actually speed up your work. There are now actually at least a couple of alternativemice that places the tracking device between you and the spacebar. This allows one to use both hands for moving the mouse again sharing work between hands. Some software programs also allow you to automate common tasks with scripts called macros. These can significantly reduce the amount of typing you need to do.

a suitcase. The pincher grip requires much more force and should be avoided when possible (e.g., instead of pulling large files out of a cabinet by grasping with a pincher grip from the top, slide your hand beneath the folder and lift it from the bottom using a power grip). People often use quite a bit of force holding those standard skinny pens and pencils. Because writing is precise work (you must be able to read what you wrote), there is some resistance between the writing surface and your pen, and the difficulty gripping a thin barrel, you must hold it tightly to maintain control. Much better are those wide-barrel pens and mechanical pencils with the soft grip at the end. One does not need to grip nearly as hard thereby reducing strain on the muscles and tendons. Personal preference does come in here so you might audition a couple of different types to see what feels most comfortable to you. Try to hold the pen as loosely as practical yet still maintain control. There is not usually a single golden bullet that will be a panacea for ones ergonomic woes. OSHA provides an excellent review through their eTool on ergonomics.1 The State of Washington also has some very good self-evaluation checklists and guides.2 One has to recognize and be cognizant of reducing all these risk factors both on and off the job to effectively reduce the potential for pain and injury. In future articles we will also explore ergonomics in the laboratory.
References 1. http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/computerworkstations/index.html. 2. http://www.lni.wa.gov/Safety/Topics/Ergonomics/ default.asp.

FORCEFUL EXERTION
Force is the amount of muscular effort expended to perform work. Exerting large amounts of force can result in fatigue and contribute to injury. The amount of force exerted depends on a combination of factors, including: The effort with which one strikes an object (e.g., pounding the keyboard) The shape and dimensions of an object you are working with How you grip an object or tool The preciseness of motion required doing the task Duration of force applied by the muscles (e.g., the amount of time spent without a muscle-relaxation break) Awkward postures (over-reaching) In addition to the pounding the keyboard example, some areas where we find unnecessary force applied are in writing and filing/shelving. There are two general types of grips people use; a pincher grip where you press your finger against you thumb and a power grip, like you would hold Glenn Ketcham is a Certified Industrial Hygienist with 22 years experience in the health and safety field. He is currently the Risk Manager for the University of Florida with responsibility for the loss prevention, ergonomics, disaster preparedness, and the occupational medicine surveillance programs. He has managed the laboratory safety programs for both the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and the University of Florida. In addition, he served as an industrial hygienist with federal OSHA compliance and has a Masters degree in environmental engineering sciences with a health physics concentration. Vince McLeod is a Certified Industrial Hygienist and the senior IH with the University of Floridas Environmental Health and Safety Division. He has 17 years of occupational health and safety experience in academic research with focus in the research laboratory. His specialties are in hazard evaluation and exposure assessments. The Safety Guys welcome your comments and questions. You can email them at thesafetyguys@ labmanager.com.

44 LabManager

labmanager.com

ONE DAY, ONE MISSION:

BE A BETTER LAB MANAGER

BOOT CAMP
October 25, 2007
TOPICS INCLUDE : Preventive Maintenance for Your Staff Leadership in Safety Recruiting, Developing, and Managing Staff

LabManager

Also learn how to:

members and more!

Define your management style Manage lab assets from people to equipment Handle difficult situations and difficult staff

PRESENTED BY Lab Manager Magazine

Massachusetts Medical Society Headquarters Waltham, MA Go to www.labmanagerbootcamp.com for the latest updates to the conference roster.

workforce & career

INSIGHTS

Retaining Institutional Knowledge When Key Employees Head For the Exits
One of the biggest challenges life sciences organizations have begun to face and one that will extend through each of the next several years is the task of retaining critical institutional know-how at a time when the most experienced lab managers have or are about to retire or depart for greener pastures. Sure, experienced lab professionals have left before. But never before have so many qualified for retirement in such a relatively short window of time. And the increasing competition for top lab talent only exacerbates what has already been termed a serious generational brain drain. The real challenge for todays laboratory environments is two-fold. First, to retain (possibly by transitioning them to more flexible working schedules) as many of the most experienced lab managers as possible. Second, to capture as much of their on-the-job learning over the course of their careers as practical and reflect that institutional and professional knowledge to a new generation of lab managers. For too many organizations, the retention of key lab talent often boils down to making a counter offer to someone who has already decided to leave. That may convince them to turn down another job offer, but it also wont keep them around for long. At best, the counteroffer buys a bit more time to leverage the skills, experience, and leadership of the individual lab manager. But even that misguided retention investment will be squandered if the organization doesnt initiate a process however formal or informal to extend the individuals intellectual capital to potential successors. But thats no easy task. Often, key, long-time employees of an organization dont themselves know exactly what parts of their lab experience and knowledge is contributing the highest value to their organization. Carlota Vollhardt, the former head of knowledge retention and transfer for Pfizer, recently told an audience from the International Association of Corporate and Professional Recruitment that although key contributors may not realize the value they drive for the organization, the people around them typically do. She says that a key managers explicit knowledge usually stays with the organization when they leave, but that its their tacit knowledge that has huge potential for creating a knowledge-based edge over the competition. Its the tacit knowledge thats really very hard to replace and hard to acquire because it requires a [continual commitment] to extract it and pass it along to others in the workplace, says Vollhardt, now the principal of Executive Knowledge International, LLC. One way for organizations to decide whether to make an investment in knowledge retention and transfer may be to gauge the departing lab managers willingness to share their learning. Vollhardt says thats because, Knowledge can only be volunteered, it cant be conscripted. What It Means For Your Career: As an increasing number of organizations wrestle with knowledge retention and transfer, its important to understand where youre contributing the most value to the organization and how you might drive your own career by empowering the growth and development of co-workers careers. Employers appreciate team play and especially now, an experienced managers willingness to advance the interests of the organization by sharing what you know with others. If youre already doing that, be sure to explain (specifically, if need be) just how youre doing that when it comes time for your next performance review. And if youre not, now may be just the time to accelerate your own career by reflecting what you know before you go. Joseph Daniel McCool is a writer, speaker and independent consultant on workforce management, recruiting best practices, and corporate management succession. He is the author of a forthcoming book about global executive recruitment and its impact on corporate performance, culture and profits. He is also a senior contributing editor with ExecuNet, a leading executive business, recruiting and referral network, and his perspectives on recruiting best practices have been cited in BusinessWeek, The Economist, The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and other media around the world. Contact him at JoeMcCool@comcast.net

Joseph Daniel McCool

labmanager.com

LabManager 47

Upcoming Web Conferences

DEVELOP and SUPPORT:
Building on the Innate Skills of Your Staff to Prepare them for the Demands of Management

Laboratory Environmental, Health, and Safety Compliance Strategies

Date: September 19, 2007 Time: 1PM ET
This web conference will review common US federal laws pertaining to the research and process laboratories and provide attendees with practical compliance solutions. The speaker will discuss laws and compliance solutions from OSHA, the EPA, the US Center of Disease Control and Prevention, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the US Department of Homeland Security.

Date: September 13, 2007 Time: 1:00PM ET

By participating in this web conference, you will be able to: Develop a person-specific plan for the success of your supervisory candidates. Build specific skills. Nurture them through their first few months on the job.
Ron Pickett is a consultant with more than 30 years of experience. He has written a column for CLMA publications for more than 10 years and is a frequent speaker at national and state meetings. He has been closely involved in establishing formal and informal leader identification and development programs in large and small organizations. This challenging process will help you take a clear and honest look at your staff and develop quick and simple individualized development plans.

Topics discussed include:

Whether lab safety or hazcom applies for occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories Recording and reporting occupational injuries and illnesses Assessing need, selection, and training for personal protective equipment Storing, using, and the limitations on flammable and combustible liquids Regulated areas for carcinogens The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act The approvals needed to work with select biological and toxic compounds The Standard for Protection against Radiation and the Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standard George Bleazard is currently the Corporate Director of Environmental Compliance, Health, Safety, and Security for Sigma-Aldrich where he is responsible for worldwide environmental compliance, occupational health and industrial hygiene, safety, and security functions. In 2003, he led the environmental waste minimization efforts resulting in the companys St. Louis facility receiving the EPAs Region Seven 2003 Pollution Prevention Award. He obtained his Bachelor of Science and Masters of Science from Central Missouri State University and has also worked for Pfizer, Hoechst-Celanese Corp., Monsanto, and the St. Louis County Health Department.

Register at www.viconpublishing.com/audio.asp
Vicon Publishing, Inc
WEB CONFERENCES

48 LabManager

labmanager.com

lab diagnosis

Concepts in Asset Management, Maintenance, and Compliance

I wrote about a forty-year logarithmic growth of technology in the April 2007 issue of Lab Manager. It talked about increasing numbers and kinds of instruments, the increasing number of analytes, the need for greater and greater sensitivity, and the need for data validation and normalization. Lets now tackle that first facet instrumentation. Instruments are developed for a few basic reasons: 1. R&D-driven needs for QA and QC of new products 2. The need for greater sensitivity 3. The need for greater productivity, efficiency, and profitability 4. Instrument manufacturers entrepreneurial fight for market share Instrument manufacturers are happy to surge forward to meet these ever-demanding needs for industry, environment, and academia. In good old bookkeeping terms, manufacturers provide assets. We can fill out the concept of assets by including your physical plant, all of your employees, and your contracts or job orders. You, the lab manager, can be entrusted with the protection, nurturing, and management of all these assets.

THE INSTRUMENTS ASSET

Instruments and equipment are the backbone of your lab. You cant accept orders if you dont have the instruments to process samples. Have you seen the cost of an ICP these days? With different instruments costing from $25,000 to $1 million, you can have more money wrapped up in equipment than in your physical lab itself. Big investment means big responsibility; and all of this requires a comprehensive working plan. By working plan we mean a maintenance schedule for everything. Lets tie those three words together from the top of this article. Asset management means knowing where everything is on a bench, in a closet, in a truck, or at a remote location. Asset management also means that the maintenance and repair records are readily available and that the state of readiness is documented. Instruments that are not fully maintained should not be on-line. Having this information readily available is one major measure of compliance. Every instrument and every piece of equipment even remotely related to sample acquisition (sample storage, sample preparation, and/or analysis) must be conscientiously maintained to the manufacturers recommendations. Compare your lab to a symphony orchestra. Every instrument must perform to the manufacturers specifications. This, in part, is how we keep an orchestra playing in tune. This is also how we keep analytical instruments and equipment performing to the specifications that were important when they were purchased. These performance characterizations help guarantee that the data will be significant according to the standards of each specific project. Certifying agencies pay you routine visits (inspections). In part, they want to verify that all your instruments and equipment are indeed being maintained to the manufacturers recommendations. Maintenance records must be current, complete, and legible. A forward-looking plan demonstrates your level of control. Forward-looking maintenance programs are a demonstration of compliance and also are a great management tool. As you think in terms of being compliant and demonstrating this compliance, you must keep more in mind than just your main-line analyzers. The laboratories chemical showers, eye wash stations, and hoods all need routine inspections. Vents and HVAC systems need periodic attention. And all sample handling, sample storage, and sample pre-treatment equipment have recommended or required maintenance checks and actions.

SAMPLE PREP EQUIPMENT

Maintenance of sample prep equipment is just as important as is maintenance for main-line analyzers. Its impossible to get good TKN results if half of the digestion block fails to reach full temperature or if you

Gerry Hall
labmanager.com

>>

LabManager 49

dont achieve even heating. The same is true for microwave digesters, autoclaves, and even your everyday pipetters and balances. More and more laboratories are setting up programs for testing both fluid delivery systems and their balances. The challenge here is to enact a consistent and rigid program. You must insure weights, volumes temperatures, and pressures are always within specified limits. And data must be reported in a defensible manner. More and more auditors are paying attention to the handling and preparation stages prior to analysis. And keep in mind there is a significant difference between generating meaningful data and just running samples that have been prepared in a process that is not fully documented.

this work should be done with any new analyzer existing technology or new technology. But this work should be run to bring on any analyzer with either new or existing technology online. Only through persistence does new technology become existing technology

WHERE DO YOU GO FOR HELP?

Instrument manufacturers know and understand the challenges of adding a new analyzer to your lab with both standard and new technologies. They also know what actions are required to keep your (any age) analyzer performing as-new. A well-written manual will devote one section to addressing routine maintenance. As a lab manager, you need to put your trust in the instrument companies. Do your homework. Check their performance claims. Check their references. And check their support systems. In the end, they want to make sales and they want happy users (i.e., positive referrals). A new tool in todays marketplace lies with some of the software products that are entering the marketplace. Some of the new software pays special attention to asset management, tracking maintenance, and demonstrating compliance. So, as a lab manager, how are you managing your assets? Gerry Hall is President of TimeKeeper America. He took an early retirement from DuPont in 85 and has involved himself in many experiences since. He currently owns a software company specializing in asset management and various demonstrations of compliance. Contact: gerry@timekeeperamerica.com or at www.timekeeperamerica.com.

TODAYS CHALLENGES
Newly acquired analyzers or equipment are either state-of-the-art or are a technologically new breed of analyzer. Both require the same demonstrations of equivalency or of capability. Where the real challenges arise are when you try to introduce new technology to a certifying agency especially one that does not have the resources to validate new technologies. Another certifying agency disaster is when you try to introduce a modified version of a test. But that is not necessarily an instrument issue. We will not delve into PBM. I, personally, have faced the issue of bringing new technology on-line in a licensed laboratory. Sure you have to do a fair amount of testing. Quite a bit of data needs to be generated. All possible matrices need to be run. Crossover studies, serial dilution studies, recovery, linearity, and correlations all need to be run. All

50 LabManager

labmanager.com

Deborah Miller President DMJ Miller & Associates

the inter view

If you cant stand the heat, stay out of the lab. After over thirty years of lab management, Deborah Miller knows all about laboratory warming. Shes savvy about meltdowns and boiling points, techno hot spots, budgetary blow-ups, and why change is potentially combustible and must be handled with care. Shes put out enough lab fires to merit comparisons to Red Adair, a legend in his own time who snuffed the worlds worst oil infernos. Her book on risk assessment is learned wisdom, born of extensive experience and occasional visits to the infernal underside of lab life. But the essence of good management is dealing effectively with gray area issues not found in any library, and the art of evaluating multiple inputs and outcomes. Miller was gifted with the confidence to act, and a penchant for partnering. Outgoing and personable, Miller ranges far and wide on the subject of lab management skills, but decisiveness and teamwork are refrain lines of Millers managerial mantra. People say, Oh, youre that way because you were in the military, says Miller, whose 1977 commissioning as an Army laboratory officer was set in motion by her marriage to an Army lieutenant. But Miller believes her foundation was instead inculcated by seeing how my parents lived their lives with a sense of service and emphasis on integrity and not so much anything they told me. Her first assignment was Hawaiis Tripler Army Medical Center managing a lab staff of 100, where I was an anomaly all the way around. Being junior to everyone in the hospital, and perhaps Americas one and only female military lab officer at the time, didnt deter her. She disarmed other department heads through partnering and mentoring arrangements, but when the time came to make hard decisions, theyd probably say I was no pushover. Millers mentoring style is similar to the question-based Socratic method; she poses inquiries to uncover contradictions in the reasoning process of the mentored and herself a win-win. The catch? You must be willing to take the time to step through all the questions. But the end result is a stronger sell, because they arrive at the conclusions on their own, and it also teaches them problem solving techniques. Staff empowerment, says Miller, is often perceived as a threat by middle management. Supervisors typically have good technical skills, but may lack the managerial skills to understand that power derives from staff. Miller is a reciprocal altruist in the sense that I understand we all sink or swim together. Not once in all my years did I ever make a decision based on what was best for me first. Even if you have to jump in front of a bullet, you cannot let people mistreat your staff. Empowerment ensures an environment where staff, instead of being afraid of making mistakes, is ever vigilant to catch mistakes at the earliest possible stage in the process. Miller tells the story of her flawed standard presentation to nurses about the finer points of taking and transporting blood samples: I kept doing my dog and pony show, but knew there was some kind of communication block. I wasnt getting through. Then another nurse told me why there was a wall. She said with all the details you give them, the nurses think youre telling them theyll screw things up. They got defensive. They werent hearing its a partnership. It was a moment of truth for Miller, who amended her spiel. Id carried that same problem across three different hospitals. I learned to listen for the little clues, like that nurse gave me. When mistakes do occur, she encourages those involved to determine the cause and suggest corrective steps. Mistakes are most likely caused by problems involving more than one process. It is least likely youll fix anything by blaming an individual. Or, if youre new to a situation, you can turn the mistakes of others to your advantage. Find

labmgr.com

F. Key Kidder

LabManager 51

something that is causing aggravation that you can fix quickly, to gain the trust of your staff. I learned that in Army basic training. The peripatetic Miller, now a quality management systems consultant, left the military hospital world in 1997 to work for the American Red Cross in different capacities. Included in her list of management tools are personal qualities to lead by example: Integrity: Know whats right. ALWAYS act accordingly. Values: You must believe in the mission of the organization and your labs ability to support it. There should never be a question of what your standard is. Do things right the first time. The fix usually takes longer. Support your staff; you cannot be watching their backs if youre watching your own. Candor: Sometimes you have to be the bearer of bad news. Dont delay. Be clear and direct, and appropriately sensitive. Diligence: You cannot expect your staff to be dedicated if you dont work hard. Self Confidence and Resilience: When things are tough you need to keep your cool, act decisively, and keep people focused on the solution. Keep Learning: From formal training and mentors; get a sense of what works for other managers (and what a bad manager looks like). Be willing to learn from your mistakes, constructive criticism, your subordinates and customers, peers, journals, meetings, and workshops. Celebrate: Dont wait for the exceptional to recognize good work and individual and group success. Organization: Control your time and paperwork. Dont be late to meetings. Francis Key Kidder started out as a journalist before moving on to politics and government relations, where he still keeps his hand in writing. He may be reached at 410-828-6529; info@labmanager.com.

ADVERTISER INDEX
Association for Laboratory Automation . . . . . .42 American Industrial Hygiene Assn. . . . . . .23 Applied Biosystems . . . . . . . . . . . .27, 28-29 Beckman Coulter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Bio-Rad Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54-55 Carestream Health, Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 FACSS National Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Hanna Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56 Hudson Control Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 KNF Neuberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 LI-COR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Labconco Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Molecular Devices Corporation . . . . . . . .21 NuAire Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 PerkinElmer Life & Analytical Sciences . .5, 32 PITTCON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 ResinTech/Aries Filter Works . . . . . . . . . .24 Sigma-Aldrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7, 38 Starlims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Thermo Fisher Scientific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

human factors

Effectively Interviewing Employment Candidates

The most common mistake when hiring new employees is failing to define and assess their qualifications in terms of the job roles most crucial to successful employee performance. This was the finding of a 2006 survey of 273 companies by management consulting firm Javitch Associates (Newton, MA). The cost of poor hiring decisions can be substantial. Rick Smith, Senior Vice President of organizational consulting firm Right Management (Philadelphia, PA) notes that it costs an average of 2.5 times an individuals salary to replace a hire who doesnt work out. These include recruitment, training, and severance costs according to a 2006 Right Management survey of 444 companies. In addition, employee morale and productivity can also suffer. To reduce these adverse effects and minimize poor hiring decisions, hiring managers should employ more careful and formal candidate assessment processes. Yet Lou Adler, author of Hire With Your Head (John Wiley & Sons, 2002), notes that relatively few companies have a formal, deliberative process in place to ensure the best hiring decisions are made. well candidates use the information you provide and grade them accordingly.

DURING THE INTERVIEW

Employment interviews provide the employer with the opportunity to get beyond the facts listed in a candidates rsum and gain some idea of the candidates compatibility as a coworker. Important attributes such as interpersonal and teamwork skills, oral communication skills, and the ability to think quickly on ones feet can be assessed in interviews. How candidates respond to questions such as how they would behave in situations likely to occur in the workplace can help you assess how candidates would fit in your work group or team. Avoid the temptation to dominate the interview conversation. However, do describe the methods you employ in R&D project management. Discuss how your group, department, or team works together with other groups within your company and with customers and suppliers. This will help candidates determine if the workplace culture is compatible with their own BEFORE THE INTERVIEW ways of doing things. Coordinate your questions with those of other interviewBefore beginning to review rsums, identify the most important ers. This will allow them to ask some of the same questions you knowledge areas, skills, and abilities the ideal candidate should posdid but in their own words. Additional interviewers also can sess. Create specific questions to determine if each candidate has explore an aspect of the candidates qualifications that you did these critical job performance factors. Dont simply accept the cannot have time to explore. The other interviewers will learn didates word. Plan to ask them to describe situations in which they things you dont and be able contribute to deciding if the job demonstrated these factors. Some managers ask candidates to candidate would be a productive, congenial coworker. To demonstrate the skill, solve a problem, or write or create something. accomplish this, the interviewers should meet or at least inform For example, a young chemist of my acquaintance was interviewthe others of issues they plan to discuss with the candidate. ing for a sales position. He given a product bulletin to read and then participated in a mock sales call on a customer. Schedule the candidate to interview with others such as WRAP-UP future peers, managers from other departments with whom they Lou Adler recommends that managers conduct an after-thewill work, and your own supervisor. After the interview, make sure fact audit to validate the hiring decision. This audit could be all of interviewers share their impressions of the candidate with you. used to determine how the best hiring decisions were made and stop doing things that caused the worst ones. This audit PREPARING FOR THE INTERVIEW should be carried out long enough after the employment interIts in the hiring managers best interest to help candidates preview to enable the hire to establish a track record of performpare for the interview. This helps assure that their most relevant ance at the company. This authors sense is that the hires first skills and experience are identified and assessed. Dont make the annual performance review would be a good time to conduct interview more difficult for you and the candidate by limiting this assessment. the information you provide beforehand. Its in both your interBetter employment decisions can both enhance manests to discuss the job opening non-confidentially in advance agers contributions to their company and their own career with the candidate. Follow the advice of professional recruiter advancement. Nick Corcodilos, author of Ask The Headhunter (Penguin/Plume, 1997), who suggests, Treat the interview as an Dr. Borchardt is a consultant and technical writer. The open-book test and give the candidate the book before the test. author of the book Career Management for Scientists and Also describe the challenges and problems and challenges Engineers, he writes often on career-related subjects. He can be your team, your company, and your industry face. Observe how reached at jkborchardt@hotmail.com.

John K. Borchardt
labmanager.com

LabManager 53